John M wrote:
> Brent:
> My idea was exactly what you thundered against. There is no adequate proof, 
> science is a limited model-view, the quote from J, Neumann even more so and 
> the court-proof is the compromise (called law) between conflicting interests 
> in a society. Reasonable doubt relies on how stupid the contemplators are.
> The 'model' you formulate and examine is  based on a limited view of already 
> esta blished circle of relevance within those explanations  people sweated 
> out based on inadequate observational methods, immature conditions  and 
> thought limited by the appropriate era's epistemic cognitive inventory.

That's a complicated sentence and I'm not sure what you mean - but I 
formulated no model.  I said that scientific (and common sense) theories 
*are models*.  They certainly are not confined to an "already established 
circle...etc".  Otherwise all physics would still be Newtonian and there'd 
be no quantum mechanics and relativity, much less string theory and MWI.

> \Disregarding the 'rest' (maybe not even knowing about more at that time_).
> I am not sitting in a complacent lukewarm water of a limited knowledge-base 
> and cut my thinking accordingly - rather confess to my ignorance and TRY to 
> comeup with better.

So what have you come up with?  Is it not a model, but reality itself?

Brent Meeker

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to